Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-03.txt

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:16 AM Robinson, Herbie
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> It may not break the formal definition of any protocol, but it breaks common usage patterns in a way that will prevent most sites from using it.

Herbie,

Maybe. But I think it's ironic that the same argument is used to keep
on IPv4 instead of moving to IPv6 since IPv6 also "breaks" things! (of
course, if everyone had switched to IPv6 then we wouldn't need this
proposal :-) )

Like any other new protocol deployed the benefits needed to be
measured against the cost. That can be considered on a use case basis.
We can also consider individual EH. For instance, some users might
want to use Fragment Header instead of IPv4 fragmentation for the
larger IPID space-- this really doesn't break any offloads more than
plain IP fragmentation does.

Tom

>
> > Again, this proposal doesn't break any protocol. If someone is already using
> > RSS with plain TCP and UDP packets then that will continue to work with ports
> > as input (although I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't work for some NICs if
> > IP options are present). Yes, the port information is not available to an
> > unmodified NIC. But I don't see that as being any different than an unmodified
> > NIC that can't extract port information from protocols other than UDP and
> > TCP like the aforementioned DCCP, SCTP, ESP, AH, etc. Also, port extraction
> > can't work with fragmented UDP and TCP packets.
> >
> > So I don't see that IPv4 EH breaks anything anymore than using a protocol
> > other than UDP or TCP. And if a site doesn't want to use IPv4 EH or risk using
> > any other protocol than TCP or UDP or even fragmentation then that's their
> > business.
>